VADHERA BUILDERS P. LTD. Vs. CST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LD . Authorised representative Shri A.K. Batra seriously objects to the assessment and submits that the ld. Authorities have not considered the facts of the case properly. According to him, the appellant has furnished all bills raised against the clients. The present dispute related to the projects under execution and that is appear at page 1 of the paperbook. The material component is not liable to service tax. The ld. Authorities have themselves brought out the fact at page 61 in a table depicting the gross value realized by the appellant in column No. 2 thereof i.e. Rs. 6,30,73,265/ -. Considering the value as cum tax value, the authorities worked out the figure in column No. 4 and that resulted with figure 6,68,13,426/ -. Giving effect to cum tax component, taxable value was worked out in column 5. Tax payable thereon was arrived in column 6(a) and CESS calculated in Column 6(b). Against such liability worked out, the tax paid amounts appearing in column 7(a) and 7(b) were set off and that gave rise to the present demand appearing in column 8 (a) and 8 (b) of the table appearing at page 17 of Order in Original.

(2.) SHRI Batra submits that while calculating the tax demand in the table, Ld. Authority failed to appreciate that the taxable value appearing under column 5 consisted both material and services. The appellant made the authority very clear that in terms of invoices appearing at page 117, 125 and 130 of the appeal folder, the material component used in the work is visible. Therefore, authority should have asked for all details in respect of the gross value meant for taxation appearing under column 5 of table at page 17 of the Order -in Original. But the authorities did not grant any deduction for the material used in the work. Tax was levied on the composite value of goods and services. Therefore the demand has arisen.

(3.) LD . DR Shri. S. Chand, submits that the appellant deprived the department to test its case without submitting all materials for examination. It is categorically brought out in paragraph 17 of the Order -in -Original that the very nature of work involved major services with miner quantum of goods. The appellant has not come out with clean hands for claiming waiver of pre -deposit. Accordingly, the appellant was bound to suffer demand in the adjudication.